Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday August 17, 2011 @03:46PM
from the how-all-trademark-claims-should-be-settled dept.

Vrallis writes "As reported recently, Mojang AB, the creators of Minecraft, have been sued by Bethesda over the name of their latest project, Scrolls, citing a trademark infringement with their Elder Scrolls games. In his latest blog post, Notch, the founder of Mojang, has challenged Bethesda to a trial by combat. Specifically, a frag match in Quake 3."

I assume that, in the old dueling tradition, his opponent gets to choose the mod.

According to the article, the sides alternate choosing levels. But seeing as Bethesda's parent company owns Id Software, three of Bethesda's best warriors might be people who actually developed Q3A. So in a sense, it already is on Bethesda's home turf.

Testing game software rarely involves just playing the game.
If you want an employee that's good at playing the game, you want a gameplay designer. id Software has on more than one occasion worked together with professional Quake 3 players to create content that appeals to the wishes of the competitive player.

Not at all.See, Notch will lose, and have to turn the name Scrolls loose to Bethesda Studios.*In the meantime he will have gained so much publicity that he could rename the game [to be] previously known as "Scrolls" to "Sacks of Donkey Poo" and people (those who matter) would buy it in a heartbeat.-nB

Heck, the publicity Scrolls (or whatever it may be called in the future) has gotten is already way more than it ever would have been had Bethesda not sued. Looks like a win-win already, and a live stream of this match would only be even more win-win regardless of the outcome.

I'm sure that's about as valid as other unusual laws that are, in theory, still on the books--can't play hopscotch on a Sunday, can't dress a donkey in a sundress in rainy weather, etc.

And of course he's been watching Game of Thrones... he even said that in his blog post!

(Off topic: This is probably the best book adaptation to film/tv I've ever seen, well beyond even Lord of the Rings or the Sci-Fi mini series version of Dune and Children of Dune. Those have been my yardsticks to measure other adaptations

Bethesda really are being total assholes here. Suing a independent developer for the word "Scrolls"? Bethesda does not own that fucking word... If those corporate assholes actually agree to this I'll be totally shocked.

Not being a lawyer, I fail to see the value in staking out a word like "Scrolls" and saying "MINE! ONLY ME CAN USE WORD!!!"

The title of Notch's game doesn't contain the word "Elder." Are there other similarities I'm not aware of? How likely is it really that someone else would come along, make shovelware, slap an "Elder Scroll" title on it, and when challenged say "But they didn't sue that guy for using half the title, so they don't care!" If their lawyers are being too unrealistic and paranoid in "d

The lack of aggressively defending your trademark can cause you to lose it in the future.That is at least part of why the Second Life lawyers granted a license to the getafirstlife guy.(a copy of the "cease and desist" letter is here: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialgetafirstlife.shtml [farmersreallysucks.com])-nB

Nope, they are just helping Bethesda defend their trademark (remember, if you dont defend it, you lose it, especially since Notch is also is also in the same gaming business).

They can't lose something that they have never had. Bethesda do not have "Scrolls" as a trademark for a computer game, and do not stand to lose "The Elder Scrolls" by doing nothing here. Furthermore, all Notch has done is apply for trademark on a name that he plans to use. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just diligence - and filing a suit about that is rather arbitrary. If Bethesda's representatives have an issue with that then they should just contest the application.

Their trademark is "Elder Scrolls". While I think Mojang's "Scrolls", even as a fantasy game, is too generic to be trademarked, it is not violating Bethesda's trademark. They are claiming they own the individual words of their trademark, even though they are common english words, and that's clearly absurd.

It doesn't matter if they have a trademark on the specific word. If someone uses a mark that is similar to something you use and they are within the same industry you risk diluting your mark and losing it. Which is why Microsoft was basically required by law if they wanted to not lose their Microsoft trademark to sue the guy who started "Mike Rowe Soft".

On the current topic, however; look at it from the other side. If Mojang created 'Scrolls' a few years back, and then Bethesda published 'The Elder Scrolls', what would happen? From that angle, it would look a damn lot like a sequel, wouldn't it?

Notch just got married this weekend, and is officially away right now, for his honeymoon. This lawsuit came up at a terrible time, and this is the way that Notch handles such stuff.

Notch seems to read and reply most to comments on the minecraft channel at reddit. The thread there [reddit.com] would probably be the place to post if you want to volunteer as one of the representatives:)

I don't think this is really about winning or losing the trademark battle anyway. It's a publicity stunt. If Bethesda agrees, they'll probably destroy whatever team Mojang assembles, but there will be plenty of good publicity to be shared between the two companies.

The way he bucks the system and refuses to just accept the absurdity of our modern legal code is fantastic. He should be applauded. Here's a man who points out how ridiculous this lawsuit is by issuing a challenge that is as valid as the lawsuit being brought against him, and has about as much connection to "justice" as any traditional course of action would have.

I always cheer on the people who make their own rules, and refuse to roll over when bullies feel like they are entitled to always having things th

Perhaps he wants a challenge? If id Software employees can be part of the team, that means he might get to get to play against Carmack, making for probably the best PR here and just an awesome experience to have, even if he loses.

In traditional duels, the person accepting the duel gets to choose a "home turf" as long as it is agreed to by a neutral third party or both parties in the duel. Notch is offering a "home turf" and pre-agreeing to it.

What makes you think that wasn't intentional? I read this as playing friendly on Notch's part "I'll even let you guys have the homecourt advantage." He said he assumed this was a misunderstanding. He's clearly not playing hardball here, that was obvious from issuing a videogame challenge rather than a countering lawsuit.

He says he is serious, but unless there is something I am missing or Notch is an idiot he is not actually expecting them to agree. Supposedly Bethesda have a financial reason for suing Notch and for a actual business to engage in basically a game of chance (Quake 3 is not a game of chance but pitting two unknown team against each other in it is) to determine if they will go ahead with the suit or drop it is just irresponsible. And assuming that they are a corporation beholden to look after the best interest

Are you kidding me? To most who likes Notch & Bethesda? I'm sorry, but I'm all for this going down. Plus, this is an olden form of dispute solving that WAS acceptable by courts. Just before it was IRL, and slightly more dangerous. If they accept, no matter what happens, everyone comes out smelling like roses. Great PR for everyone which shareholders love.

Supposedly Bethesda have a financial reason for suing Notch and for a actual business to engage in basically a game of chance (Quake 3 is not a game of chance but pitting two unknown team against each other in it is) to determine if they will go ahead with the suit or drop it is just irresponsible. And assuming that they are a corporation beholden to look after the best interests of their shareholders most likely an illegal act to boot.

That makes the huge assumption that the financial loss caused by a game

If serious, he just screwed himself out of using the contested name. He just expressed his willingness to change it. So now, a judge knows that it's not crucial to the project to keep the name, if he would frivolously agree to changing it over the outcome of a video game match.

It's like this. Big bad greedy company wants your name, or your domain, or wants you to stop using it because it infringes on their trademark, or "dilutes their brand" or whatever buzzwords they use. You say you will change it if they pay you a million dollars. You probably just screwed yourself in court if they refuse, because it makes you look like a squatter.

Remember MikeRoweSoft.com? He might have had a leg to stand on because it was his name, and he was a software developer, but as soon as he attempted to extort money from Microsoft, his prospects of winning were shot. (If I recall correctly, he settled for some free gifts from MS)

It sounds to me like he's decided that he can't afford to fight (welcome to the US legal system!), so it doesn't matter what a judge would think. At this point he's just milking the Streisand Effect for what little he can get out of it, and if this happens to make them change their mind about going to court that's just a bonus.

No. You are completely wrong on that - the law does not say anything about *needing* a trademark. In fact, the courts will probably look favorably on this attempt to settle out of court - showing a willingness to compromise is actually a bonus, not a strike against you.

There's only a few outcomes left, now, which will show who's in the right:1) If Bethesda agrees, and both parties abide by the results, everyone saying this is a case of the legal department not being in touch with the rest of the company get

(I didn't realize it would be in Sweden... it could be quite different. All bets are off)

But I was more thinking of:

6) Judge sternly rules to stop using the name Scrolls, and (not necessarily because) he doesn't like the court's time being wasted with frivolity. If he's willing to give up the name over the outcome of a video game, just give it up. I highly doubt the judge would identify with the chivalry and nobody is going to take that challenge seriously. It would be legally foolish for anyone on the comp

"Willing to settle it via arbitration" is different than "willing to give it up", because there's about even odds that Mojang would end up with the trademark, not Bethesda. It's not Notch saying "we have no claim to it", it's saying "we both have equal claim to it".

There's also the problem that Bethesda's entire suit is based on "customers could be confused into thinking Scrolls is a Bethesda game". Which is untrue for a reason that hasn't been brought up here: most gamers don't think of Bethesda's games as

I don't think this is squatting in any way, I just used that as an example. The point is, he's just demonstrated that he's willing to change it over something arbitrary. (like payment of money in my examples, or in this case a blog post requesting a video game duel)

It's not "This is my brand and I'm going to defend it from Bethesda" anymore. Now it's, "I'd be willing to change it in exchange for..." I think the challenge was a dumb thing to do, for that reason.

Well the courts wouldn't make that stance at all. And I don't really understand why you would think that they would. Bethesda does not have the trademark to "Spells" regardless of what Notch might be willing to trade it for (unless he trades it of course). The case that you brought up is irrelevant since there never was a ruling or even an indication of a ruling. He probably settled since they promised to pay his legal fees, something that they wouldn't be forced to do if they lost the case so if he had won

I think they (both) might want to check with Steven Mancinelli [uspto.gov]. Notch's defense would run to "I can't be infringing on Bethesda's trademark, since this other trademark was plainly issued to the pertinent domain AND is more directly infringed if anyone is.

Steven Mancinelli is the attorney of record, the important line is the one above it (APPLICANT) Mojang AB CORPORATION SWEDEN 1 Lagskarsvagen Johanneshov SWEDEN 12155 which means this is probably the reason Bethesda is suing.

I'm usually not this low-brow, but I'd like to give Bethesda a roll of toilet paper, which is the trophy for winning Ass-Wipe of the Year. And if you think about it, toilet paper is rolled like scrolls are, so sue me too, ass-wipes.

Eh? It's out? I'll have to keep an eye for it in the Steam $5.00 section in a few months hopefully. Bethesda hasn't made a game that impressed me (in a non graphics related fashion) since Morrowind. I actually was looking forward to Fallout 3, thinking to myself, "Well, all of Bethesda's other games are beautiful sprawling wastelands with little actual content in them, so maybe they'll get this right." Instead I got "OMG Daddy NO!".

As far as the Quake 3 challenge, it's genius. Awesome rebuttal to a ov

I hate to have a fanboy reaction but, well, I already am. Please forgive me, I'll keep it civil.

Fallout 3 didn't have enough content? I spent well over a hundred hours playing that game, more time than I spent playing new vegas. And that was before the DLC. Maybe beautiful, wide open, sandbox style games just aren't for you. I'd also advise you to also stay away from minecraft, as the plot there can be said to be weak to nonexistent.

Oh, I love Minecraft because it's not trying to pretend to be something it's not. Perhaps I could have felt the same way about Fallout 3 if it wasn't a Fallout game. To be fair, I suppose perhaps my attitude might be colored by fanboyism of the original Fallouts. It just didn't have the same feel. The ending annoyed me. I still spent plenty of time playing it, but I feel like they built this giant world for you to explore, and then when developing character construction and advancement, didn't take int

To be fair, I suppose perhaps my attitude might be colored by fanboyism of the original Fallouts. It just didn't have the same feel.

The fanboyism of the original fallouts really never ceases to amaze me. Maybe other people had a different experience with it, but some sections of the game crash so often that getting through any piece without some exception being thrown was grounds for immediate saving. I probably had something like 5 rolling save files devoted just to creeping my way through the mutant base, trying not to trigger any broken scripts. Yes, I'll admit there are good parts to the game, plotlines and story is great, but t

I hit a few bugs in the original Fallouts, sure, but I think Fallout 3 was far more glitchy for me. I also really liked Ultima 7, in spite of the fact that sneezing in real life at an unexpected time would result in a unwinnable situation. If the game is good enough, I will be more willing to overlook that it's glitchy. Broken scripts are annoying, but at least you can usually save in preparation for them. Spots on the terrain you can get trapped inside of with no way to escape (Fallout 3) is not.

Parent was suggesting that people should plan on pirating Skyrim in retaliation for Bethesda/Zenimax's actions. Typical juvenile reaction.

Anyway, it isn't like Bethesda is trying to sue Notch into the ground. They are suing him to change the name of his upcoming (not released) game. I don't exactly agree with them, but I think that there is enough to their claim not to reject out of hand the notion that a fantasy-themed computer game called "Scrolls" could potentially cause some amount of confusion with a l

Nice straw man, don't mind this match...WHOOSH! Ooops, he all burned up. your argument MIGHT have merit if anybody including Bethesda actually called their game scroll anything, but they don't and they NEVER have. it has ALWAYS been Morrowind, Oblivion, Arena, etc. Hell look up some of their past ads, they have the name once at the top and then for the rest of the ad its called by the last name.

This is just as damned stupid as MSFT trying to claim the word WIndows for things other than OSes, or Apple tryi

Yea, I hit up steam during sales, and end up with more games then I can reasonably play for around the same price as the latest blockbuster. Usually those games are last years blockbusters, so they run great on my computer built with last years hardware (Which is also easy on the wallet).

Why do you assume that game pirating is rampant? I know at least 4 PC gamers, who do something similar to what I do. I don't know any that torrent games unless they are trying to rid a game they bought of DRM. (Offtopic

Uh, he's on a schedule. 1.8 is not scheduled for release until later this month IIRC. As a plugin dev for bukkit (a modded version of a MC server that handles plugins), I'm relieved that updates aren't jammed together. Updating also means downtime for many modded servers too.

Indeed, when there are a bunch of a.b.c releases, the server I play on is largely unusable during the entire flurry of updates due to client/server version incompatibilities. I like frequent updates, but I don't like being unable to play.

Eh, just convert to MineTest and enjoy a multiplayer GPL'd version of Minecraft done in C++ with cross platform support for Windows, linux, and OSX:)
It may not be finished, but at least anyone can go and wrench on it.
Also shouldn't he have referred to it as a 'Trial of Refusal'?

Minecraft isn't finished? Amidst the exploration of the fantastic structures created across thousands of servers, and the investigations of the wealth of possibilities of the engine and gameplay, I really hadn't noticed.

So I'm going to get more out of this for my 15 bucks. Best 15 bucks I ever spent.

Why does Notch expect them to sell-out their morals and instincts for a few fleeting moments of fun and chance to be the bigger person over something they're making a bigger deal about than necessary?

Because if they accept, they get tons of good press, way more than the current bad press they're getting for suing over a single word. In fact, I'd imagine it would turn out better for them than if they'd never sued at all.

Ideal solution is much like the Southwest vs Stevens Aviation trademark "trial by armwrestling".

Play up the match for tons of good PR and geek cred, play for charity plus the rights to the trademark, then whoever wins immediately grants unlimited rights to the trademark to the losing party.

Bethesda can say they defended their trademark, everyone gets good PR, charities get money, everyone is saved an expensive court case (that Bethesda probably can't win without spending loads of money on) and the world (vi